Why does Sony let exclusives slip away?

[OptimalPrime]

GTA IV, Assassin's Creed, and LA Noire all had the chance to be PS3 exlcusives but Sony let those chances slip away. Its lucky to have so many inhouse developers or the PS3 truly would be a console with a few exclusives. If you are a PS3 owner, would you want to pay for a "premium" PSN if it meant getting more exclusives? it seems sony does not wanna pay for exclusivity unlike its competitor microsoft.

EDIT: By premium i mean paying a yearly subscription of say $40-70 to get earlier access to PSN content. Online play should still be free.

 

[Woodscare]

I certsinly would, but it would depend on the premium

 

[Liberaliter]

I didn't know Assassins Creed was going to be a ps3 exclusive. PS3 gets loads of exclusives though because of all the first party devs, so I don't really see a problem, more people get to play good games, simple as that.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

Points of for missing FFXIII.

Don't remember any of those previous cropping up, but when FFXIII was announced for the 360 as well shit really hit the fan.

The FF franchise was reputedly a console-seller after all.

 

[The Real Sandman]

Making games cost money.

Making games exclusive costs even more money.

Sony didn't make enough money to cover the costs of exclusives rights.

Ergo...

What can I say...

Spoiler: MONEY MAKES THE WORLD GO 'ROUND!

 

[Odin311]

I don't think they want them to go. But a developer can make a lot more money if they release on more than one console.

 

[James Cassidy]

The term "exclusive" is not what it used to be anymore.

Now-a-days, developers are making things called "Timed Exclusives" where one system will get the game first a before any other game. It's all about making money. I wouldn't be surprised if Metal gear, Infamous, or anything other game made it on the 360 because of this.

I mean, BioShock 1 was put on the PS3 some time after it's release. My BioShock copy still says "Only on Xbox360."

It's all about money. The wider the marker, the more money you make.

 

[mad825]

GTA IV, Assassin's Creed, and LA Noire all had the chance to be PS3 exlcusives but Sony let those chances slip away. Its lucky to have so many inhouse developers or the PS3 truly would be a console with a few exclusives. If you are a PS3 owner, would you want to pay for a "premium" PSN if it meant getting more exclusives? it seems sony does not wanna pay for exclusivity unlike its competitor microsoft.

for GTA Rockstar never has stuck to a specific console/pc (GTA on mac as well? )

Assassin's Creed again this is UBIsoft a microsoft's friend or that they may be owned by MS
LA Noire Rockstar again

besides who likes console (PS3) bashers like you.

 

[thiosk]

The exclusives 'slip away' because there isn't enough difference between the xbox and ps3 to justify keeping them all to themselves.

And getting annoyed by it is like getting all hissy that everyone gets chocolate milk.

Consider a title developed in house. Chances are, you make much more money selling that title to everyone than you do by keeping it for your console; besides, every console sold is a loss, which has to be made up with game sales.

Might as well move as much software as possible.

 

[Dexiro]

I actually prefer multiplatform games since most of my friends don't play ps3.

Like it was great being able to talk to my friends about FF13, and i'd still love for a game like Disgaea 3 to be multiplatform so i could talk to them about that too

 

[Simalacrum]

Exclusives cost money.. lots of money.

Microsoft has LOTS of money.

Sony only has LOTS of money.

Therefore, Microsoft gets more 3rd party support.

Also, now that 360 is in the lead against PS3 (just), developers are more willing to go multiplatform as they can make significant money on both consoles; this wasn't the case last gen, as PS2 was significantly in the lead and therefore was the most attractive to developers.

And no, I don't want to pay a premium for PSN. An optional payment for extra stuff?... maybe.

 

[Altorin]

To buy exclusivity costs a lot of money, because you basically have to pay a game's publisher the difference in sales going multiplatform would cost. If a game would sell 7 million multiplatform, but only pull in 4 million exclusive, that publisher's missing money has to come from somewhere, and it will be on the tab of the console maker.

Why do we as gamers care? Multiplatform games are generally good for us. Exclusivity should only be important to the companies involved. They're the ones paying millions for the deal.

 

[Iwata]

I just want to say that the word "exclusive" means very little these days, especially if associated not with the PS3, but with the X-Box.

 

[Kouen]

I'm surprised no one has said something like "lololol coz ps3 sux noobs lol 360 ftw"

but yea as for the exclusive thing I don't mind ether way im still cheesed off about some titles that was ps2 only and couldn't get them on my Xbox the biggest one to piss me off was Project Zero (Fatal Frame) 3 was PS2 only But 1 and 2 (Directors cut no less) was on Xbox :/

 

[azncutthroat]

Because exclusives arbitrarily hurt both the gamer and developer; the gamer loses by having to choose between platforms (and the rise of "fan-boyism"), and the developer loses by having potential gamers cut off from them.

The only winners are those greedy bastards running the game companies by making gamers pay to get the privilege of fucked up the ass for no good reason.

 

[randomrob]

I don't mind really. Why does it matter if it's exclusive? it just means more people will play it if it's not.

 

[Pingieking]

Sony IS paying for exclusivity, via first party devs. MS lacks those first party devs, so they make up for it by buying exclusives or buying third parties out of exclusives. It's just different business philosophies.

With that said, I don't understand why MS is throwing good money after bad in buying a bunch of exclusive JRPGs when their gamer base aren't too into it. On top of the fact that in the major market for JRPGs, Japan, the X360 is almost not relevant.

 

[OptimalPrime]

besides who likes console (PS3) bashers like you.

I'm not bashing anything. I was asking a question. Sorry you cant seem to understand english

 

[Icehearted]

GTA IV, Assassin's Creed, and LA Noire all had the chance to be PS3 exlcusives but Sony let those chances slip away. Its lucky to have so many inhouse developers or the PS3 truly would be a console with a few exclusives. If you are a PS3 owner, would you want to pay for a "premium" PSN if it meant getting more exclusives? it seems sony does not wanna pay for exclusivity unlike its competitor microsoft.

When Sony's PS3 was first coming out, Ken "Batshit Crazy and Loving It!" Kutaragi made a lot of idiotic calls. The PS3 was too cheap at $600. People will buy anything with Sony printed on it. One of my favorites, and most relevant here is what Sony Europe CEO David Reeves said about the PS3: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 1995 and PS2 in 2000 that the first five million are going to buy it, whatever it is, even [if] it didn't have games,".

Sony let a lot of exclusives go because they felt they didn't need them. Sony was an unstoppable force, they dominated with the Playstation, and achieved god-like ego status with the PS2. Companies were actually going out of their way to make offers to Sony for exclusivity, including Rockstar, which actually made a huge effort to see if Sony wanted some exclusivity deal. Sony outrightly ignored them, and Microsoft,wanting to be bigger and not content with simply waiting for offers, actively perused what Sony decided was inconsequential.